“Section 271(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)8,984 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(c)

Klin Industries, Sandha Khamidana, Junagadh vs. The ACIT, Circle, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80J

Industries 3. That the learned NFAC has grossly erred in law and on facts by confirming the penalty of Rs.6,21,198/-, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, despite the final tax liability for A. Y. 2014-15, having been determined and levied exclusively under the deemed provisions ... before this Tribunal. 6. Shri R.B. Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that penalty notice issued by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, is vague and defective as no limb of either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, have been

Balu Vithal Pawale, Pune vs. ITO WD- 2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2869/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 144BSection 147rSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Notice of demand dated 31-3- 2022 issued under section 156 of the Act, and Penalty notice dated 31- 3-2022 issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are quashed and set aside. 18. The matter is now remanded back to the Assessing Officer, who shall provide

Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circl24(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 5304/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 271(1)(c)

purposes of this order, AY 2013-14 is being taken as lead year. 3. The ld. Assessing Officer passed order dated 22.03.2019 under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2013-14. The ld. AO, inter alia, considering judicial precedents on the issue of penalty, imposed the penalty upon the premises ... that the issue of default revenue expenditure is a debatable issue and that the same therefore would not attract invocation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Upon consideration of the matter, we find merit in the arguments of the appellant assessee. We are of the considered

Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 24(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 5303/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Solitairian Buildinfra (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3833/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Section 132Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 and arises out of the penalty order dated 25-03-2023 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That having ... taxmann.com 597 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that: 21. The respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton

Uttaranchal Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Limited, Dehradun vs. JCIT, Dehradun

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 165/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 165/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Uttaranchal Cooperative Sugar Vs Joint Commissioner Of Factories Federation Ltd., Income Tax, Dehradun Jogiwala, Near Railway Crossing, Uttarakhand-248001 Badripur, Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfu7713K Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Kishore, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/10769767588(1) Dated 12.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Kishore, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Gadarpur vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Kashipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 101/DDN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Gurkiran Kaur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises it’s sole substantive grievance challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action levying section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.54,56,853/- in the Assessing 2 Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Officer’s order dated 08.08.2019 and upheld ... authorities hold in this factual backdrop that the above disallowance is an instance of concealment of income at the assessee’s behest attracting section 271(1)(c) in issue. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. We find

Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Devi Singh, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

ITA 201/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Devi Singh, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

ITA 20/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL

Star Cotspin Limited, Gangrar Chittorgarh vs. Central Circle, Ajmer

ITA 1293/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CA & NareshJagetia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 148ASection 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Prime Products Limited, Kanpur vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the ld. Assessing Officer on 23.01.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. THAT ... APPEALS), NFAC HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ACTION OF LEARNED AO IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 94,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C

Mukesh Mohanlal Vaghela, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Department is allowed for assessment year 2020-21

ITA 1251/AHD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Mukesh M. Vaghela

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

1,06,68,000/-, tax was charged under section 115BBE, interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was levied, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. Assessee : Mukesh M. Vaghela A.Ys: 2013-14 to 2020-21 8. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the connection